Individuals often aim to reverse undesired outcomes in interactions with automated systems, like loan denials, by either implementing system-recommended actions (recourse), or manipulating their features. While providing recourse benefits users and enhances system utility, it also provides information about the decision process that can be used for more effective strategic manipulation, especially when the individuals collectively share such information with each other. We show that this tension leads rational utility-maximizing systems to frequently withhold recourse, resulting in decreased population utility, particularly impacting sensitive groups. To mitigate these effects, we explore the role of recourse subsidies, finding them effective in increasing the provision of recourse actions by rational systems, as well as lowering the potential social cost and mitigating unfairness caused by recourse withholding.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated a remarkable ability to serve as general-purpose tools for various language-based tasks. Recent works have demonstrated that the efficacy of such models can be improved through iterative dialog between multiple models. While these paradigms show promise in improving model efficacy, most works in this area treat collaboration as an emergent behavior, rather than a learned behavior. In doing so, current multi-agent frameworks rely on collaborative behaviors to have been sufficiently trained into off-the-shelf models. To address this limitation, we propose ACC-Collab, an **A**ctor-**C**riti**c** based learning framework to produce a two-agent team (an actor-agent and a critic-agent) specialized in collaboration. We demonstrate that ACC-Collab outperforms SotA multi-agent techniques on a wide array of benchmarks.

The flexible and generalized nature of large language models has allowed for their application in a wide array of language-based domains. Much like their human contemporaries, these models are capable of engaging in discussions and debates as a means of improving answer quality. We first take a theoretical approach to analyzing debate and provide a framework through which debate can be mathematically examined. Building on this framework, we provide several theoretical results for multi-agent debate. In particular, we demonstrate that similar model capabilities, or similar model responses, can result in static debate dynamics where the debate procedure simply converges to the majority opinion. When this majority opinion is the result of a common misconception (ingrained in the models through shared training data) debate is likely to converge to answers associated with that common misconception. Using insights from our theoretical results we then propose three interventions which improve the efficacy of debate. For each intervention, we provide theoretical results demonstrating how debate is improved. We also demonstrate that these interventions result in better performance on four common benchmark tasks.

Recommender systems serve the dual purpose of presenting relevant content to users and helping content creators reach their target audience. The dual nature of these systems naturally influences both users and creators: users' preferences are affected by the items they are recommended, while creators may be incentivized to alter their content to attract more users. We define a model, called user-creator feature dynamics, to capture the dual influence of recommender systems. We prove that a recommender system with dual influence is guaranteed to polarize, causing diversity loss in the system. We then investigate, both theoretically and empirically, approaches for mitigating polarization and promoting diversity in recommender systems. Unexpectedly, we find that common diversity-promoting approaches do not work in the presence of dual influence, while relevancy-optimizing methods like top-$k$ truncation can prevent polarization and improve diversity of the system.

Group-fair learning methods typically seek to ensure that some measure of prediction efficacy for (often historically) disadvantaged minority groups is comparable to that for the majority of the population. When a principal seeks to adopt a group-fair approach to replace another, the principal may face opposition from those who feel they may be harmed by the switch, and this, in turn, may deter adoption. We propose that a potential mitigation to this concern is to ensure that a group-fair model is also popular, in the sense that, for a majority of the target population, it yields a preferred distribution over outcomes compared with the conventional model. In this paper, we show that state of the art fair learning approaches are often unpopular in this sense. We propose several efficient algorithms for postprocessing an existing group-fair learning scheme to improve its popularity while retaining fairness. Through extensive experiments, we demonstrate that the proposed postprocessing approaches are highly effective in practice.

The increasing automation of high-stakes decisions with direct impact on the lives and well-being of individuals raises a number of important considerations. Prominent among these is strategic behavior by individuals hoping to achieve a more desirable outcome. Two forms of such behavior are commonly studied: 1) misreporting of individual attributes, and 2) recourse, or actions that truly change such attributes. The former involves deception, and is inherently undesirable, whereas the latter may well be a desirable goal insofar as it changes true individual qualification. We study misreporting and recourse as strategic choices by individuals within a unified framework. In particular, we propose auditing as a means to incentivize recourse actions over attribute manipulation, and characterize optimal audit policies for two types of principals, utility-maximizing and recourse-maximizing. Additionally, we consider subsidies as an incentive for recourse over manipulation, and show that even a utility-maximizing principal would be willing to devote a considerable amount of audit budget to providing such subsidies. Finally, we consider the problem of optimizing fines for failed audits, and bound the total cost incurred by the population as a result of audits.

The integrity of elections is central to democratic systems. However, a myriad of malicious actors aspire to influence election outcomes for financial or political benefit. A common means to such ends is by manipulating perceptions of the voting public about select candidates, for example, through misinformation. We present a formal model of the impact of perception manipulation on election outcomes in the framework of spatial voting theory, in which the preferences of voters over candidates are generated based on their relative distance in the space of issues. We show that controlling elections in this model is, in general, NP-hard, whether issues are binary or real-valued. However, we demonstrate that critical to intractability is the diversity of opinions on issues exhibited by the voting public. When voter views lack diversity, and we can instead group them into a small number of categories---for example, as a result of political polarization---the election control problem can be solved in polynomial time in the number of issues and candidates for arbitrary scoring rules.

In many societal resource allocation domains, machine learning methods are increasingly used to either score or rank agents in order to decide which ones should receive either resources (e.g., homeless services) or scrutiny (e.g., child welfare investigations) from social services agencies. An agency's scoring function typically operates on a feature vector that contains a combination of self-reported features and information available to the agency about individuals or households. This can create incentives for agents to misrepresent their self-reported features in order to receive resources or avoid scrutiny, but agencies may be able to selectively audit agents to verify the veracity of their reports. We study the problem of optimal auditing of agents in such settings. When decisions are made using a threshold on an agent's score, the optimal audit policy has a surprisingly simple structure, uniformly auditing all agents who could benefit from lying. While this policy can, in general be hard to compute because of the difficulty of identifying the set of agents who could benefit from lying given a complete set of reported types, we also present sufficient conditions under which it is tractable. We show that the scarce resource setting is more difficult, and exhibit an approximately optimal audit policy in this case. In addition, we show that in either setting verifying whether it is possible to incentivize exact truthfulness is hard even to approximate. However, we also exhibit sufficient conditions for solving this problem optimally, and for obtaining good approximations.

Deception is a fundamental issue across a diverse array of settings, from cybersecurity, where decoys (e.g., honeypots) are an important tool, to politics that can feature politically motivated “leaks” and fake news about candidates. Typical considerations of deception view it as providing false information. However, just as important but less frequently studied is a more tacit form where information is strategically hidden or leaked. We consider the problem of how much an adversary can affect a principal's decision by “half-truths”, that is, by masking or hiding bits of information, when the principal is oblivious to the presence of the adversary. The principal's problem can be modeled as one of predicting future states of variables in a dynamic Bayes network, and we show that, while theoretically the principal's decisions can be made arbitrarily bad, the optimal attack is NP-hard to approximate, even under strong assumptions favoring the attacker. However, we also describe an important special case where the dependency of future states on past states is additive, in which we can efficiently compute an approximately optimal attack. Moreover, in networks with a linear transition function we can solve the problem optimally in polynomial time.

Integrity of elections is vital to democratic systems, but it is frequently threatened by malicious actors.The study of algorithmic complexity of the problem of manipulating election outcomes by changing its structural features is known as election control Rothe [2016].One means of election control that has been proposed, pertinent to the spatial voting model, is to select a subset of issues that determine voter preferences over candidates.We study a variation of this model in which voters have judgments about relative importance of issues, and a malicious actor can manipulate these judgments.We show that computing effective manipulations in this model is NP-hard even with two candidates or binary issues.However, we demonstrate that the problem becomes tractable with a constant number of voters or issues.Additionally, while it remains intractable when voters can vote stochastically, we exhibit an important special case in which stochastic voting behavior enables tractable manipulation.